- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:30:26 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Pat Hayes wrote: > > After getting this wrong several times, Now there's a red flag right there: the guy who has been doing symbolic logic for breakfast since about the time I was born got this wrong several times. And even with all these contortions and special cases, RDF/XML 1.0 syntax *still* can't serialize all the graphs of this form. I suggest, again, the following simple abstract syntax: An RDF graph is a set of triples <S, P, O>; each of S, P, O is a term; a term is either an absolute URI reference, a bNode, or a literal. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0140.html The model theory straightfowardly applies to this liberal syntax, I believe. Regarding scope, I think it's straightforward to treat bNodes the way local variables are treated in traditional logical syntax: you rename them as necessary when you merge graphs. After thinking for a while[27Sep] about the question of whether the formalism for RDF graphs should be limited by RDF/XML 1.0 syntax, I've come to the pretty firm conclusion that no, there's no reason we should have to redo the RDF Core model theory when we revisit the design of RDF syntax. In fact, this liberal abstract syntax should go a long way toward shaping the design of new RDF concrete syntaxes. [27Sep] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0420.html > here's an attempt at a formal > definition of an RDF graph. This is worded to make it align naturally "naturally". Hmm... that's a stretch! > with the Ntriples syntax. > > ----- > > An RDF graph <N,E,oo,ss,gl> is a special labelled directed > multigraph, consisting of: [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 18:30:32 UTC